Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42817912›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2026

Calibration of Priors for Bayesian Model-Based Dose-Finding Trial Designs With Joint Outcomes.

Emily Alger, Shing M Lee, Ying Kuen K Cheung, Christina Yap

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Emily AlgerClinical Trial and Statistics Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5378-7439
Shing M LeeDepartment of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8413-6869
Ying Kuen K CheungDepartment of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8530-035X
Christina YapClinical Trial and Statistics Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6715-2514

Funding

Institute of Cancer Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of dose-finding oncology trials is to assess the safety of anti-cancer treatments across multiple doses and to recommend dose(s) for subsequent trials. As patients' outcomes accrue, trialists dynamically recommend new doses for further investigation during the trial. This adaptive decision-making lends itself to Bayesian learning, with Bayesian frameworks increasingly guiding dose recommendations in model-based dose-finding designs, including the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM). However, such approaches introduce increased complexity, not least when additional outcomes are incorporated within designs. Such trial designs require careful prior selection. Directly applying prior calibration methods developed for single outcome model-based trial designs to joint outcome trial designs may introduce unintended bias in dose recommendations, potentially limiting dose exploration and failing to accurately reflect trialists' a priori beliefs. We extend methodology to analytically calibrate priors for model-based joint outcome trial designs with divergence minimisation. Our method offers an analytical and computationally efficient technique. We demonstrate the flexibility of our calibration method relative to existing approaches in ensemble simulation scenarios, and show that calibrating priors in this way delivers improved accuracy and computational efficiency compared with traditional grid search methods. As Bayesian dose-finding trial designs continue to advance, research and guidance on the effective calibration of design parameters is essential to support uptake and ensure optimal performance in practice. This method provides an analytical and intuitive approach to prior calibration, highlighting the importance of rigorous prior calibration in improving model accuracy and dose selection for safer, more effective oncology treatments.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsDose-Response Relationship, DrugModels, StatisticalResearch DesignBayes TheoremCalibrationComputer SimulationHumansMaximum Tolerated DoseAntineoplastic AgentsContinual Reassessment Methoddose‐finding trialsjoint outcomesPhase Iprior calibrationpriors

Identifiers

PMID42817912
PMCPMC13628446

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.